Did Mckenna Denson Meet With Thomas S. Monson After MTC?

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Okay, enough of you have made a clear enough case, and T-Shirt has posted the relevant portion of the Handbook, for me to stop and consider if I’m being unreasonable on the point about excommunication versus resignation. It feels to me like he’s getting away with it all over again, but I’ll give it some consideration before commenting further.

Being excommunicated and resigning your membership both accomplish the same thing; the promises and covenants made between God and yourself are no longer in place.  In order for both a person who has resigned their membership and a person who has been excommunicated to have their sins forgiven they would need to exercise faith in the Savior, repent, and be rebaptized. 

[smac97]

48 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Okay, enough of you have made a clear enough case, and T-Shirt has posted the relevant portion of the Handbook, for me to stop and consider if I’m being unreasonable on the point about excommunication versus resignation. It feels to me like he’s getting away with it all over again, but I’ll give it some consideration before commenting further.

"Getting away with it" seems pretty odd.  The end result of excommunication is 1:1 identical to the end result of a resignation.  His record is annotated, either way.  And all the promises of blessings in the hereafter are nullified (or, perhaps more properly, suspended).

But him "getting away with it" has little to do with what you said here: "I also strongly suspect that the Church has allowed it because excommunicating him is the church making an admission about his guilt."

I would like to think there are times when you can look at the LDS Church and not find fault with it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 15, 2018 by smac97

[Calm]

6 hours ago, rongo said:

I've kind of tuned this out lately. Did Joseph Bishop resign his membership? 

That's interesting because of the handbook instruction that DCs should still be held if there is cause and someone resigns to avoid the DC. 

I believe the Handbook says the record is to be annotated so if the person who resigned decides to rejoin the Church, the DC or other discipline will take place then.

There was a thread on this back in 2013.  I can find it if necessary.

add-on :  I see Smac has linked to the thread already as well as the Handbook posted.

------

For those who want the Church to refuse the resignation (against policy, but possibly legal if I understand Smac) and excommunicate Bishop, do you believe this same process so be done for anyone who resigns as it used to be or do you think the Church has the right to determine who they let go without a fuss and who they insist they have a right to judge?

Some might see an easy line to be any criminal acts require a DC...does this include ones that are only suspected or the person has been charged with?  What about countries that have laws different than the US that impact morality choices?  Does the Church follow the local laws and if not, why not?  I can think of a number of other questions that impact 'drawing a line' such that it ends up being arbitrary...which I suspect wouldn't please everyone.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Calm

[ttribe]

Meh, resigned or ex'ed, doesn't matter.  The effect is the same, as far as the Church is concerned.

[Marginal Gains]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I would like to think there are times when you can look at the LDS Church and not find fault with it.

Thanks,

-Smac

When the Church starts behaving like a stand up guy, I’ll start giving it credit.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Quote

I would like to think there are times when you can look at the LDS Church and not find fault with it.

Thanks,

-Smac

When the Church starts behaving like a stand up guy, I’ll start giving it credit.

So . . . never.  "Starts behaving like a stad up guy" is infinitely malleable.  And completely up to you.

Disappointing, but not really surprising.  Faultfinding is addictive, I think.  It's hard to stop once you've started.

Perhaps someday...

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

The Church and Bishop have submitted their responses,  both are motions to dismiss.

[Calm]

Reasoning?

[provoman]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Reasoning?

statute of limitations

 

I do not know how to host/post documents

Edited May 16, 2018 by provoman

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, provoman said:

statute of limitations

 

I do not know how to host/post documents

That is enough, thanks.

I didn't think that applied to civil stuff, but the length of time does make it much harder to get past the he said/she said.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Calm

[Marginal Gains]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

So . . . never.  "Starts behaving like a stad up guy" is infinitely malleable.  And completely up to you.

Disappointing, but not really surprising.  Faultfinding is addictive, I think.  It's hard to stop once you've started.

Perhaps someday...

Thanks,

-Smac

You could always start practicing what you preach, and stop finding fault with me.

Perhaps someday...

[rockpond]

59 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

You could always start practicing what you preach, and stop finding fault with me.

Perhaps someday...

You are relatively new here so if you haven't yet picked up on it (and you probably have)... it is part of Smac's charm that he labels those who disagree with him as "fault-finders".  I'm still not sure if the irony of such an assertion, here on a board dedicated to dialogue, is apparent to him.

[smac97]

8 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

You could always start practicing what you preach, and stop finding fault with me.

Perhaps someday...

Perhaps there is something to what you say.  I'll think on it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

DN article on the request for dismissal:  https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900018712/lds-church-ex-mtc-leader-ask-judge-to-dismiss-colorado-womans-sexual-assault-suit.html

More spin and misrepresentation by the Church.  Denson did actually report the incident to the church early on (Leavitt has confirmed that).  And Bishop confessed to some of the allegations.

Protect the hierarchy and corporation at all costs.  So disappointing. 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

DN article on the request for dismissal:  https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900018712/lds-church-ex-mtc-leader-ask-judge-to-dismiss-colorado-womans-sexual-assault-suit.html

More spin and misrepresentation by the Church.  

With respect, I disagree that such things are going on.

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Denson did actually report the incident to the church early on (Leavitt has confirmed that).  

Leavitt states that he never passed on what Denson reported to him.

And Leavitt's account of what Denson reported is quite different from what Denson claims she reported to him.

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And Bishop confessed to some of the allegations.

He has not confessed to rape or attempted rape.  Those are the allegations at issue in the litigation.

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Protect the hierarchy and corporation at all costs.  So disappointing. 

I don't think this is about protection.  This is about what can, or cannot, be presented in a court of law.  Denson had an opportunity beyond this.  She could possibly have reached a negotiated settlement with the Church.  She instead chose to blow up her own attorneys' negotiations with the Church.

I feel quite badly for Ms. Denson.  I think Bishop did something to her that was despicable and dishonorable, though at present I doubt it was rape or attempted rape.  In any event, Denson's judicial remedies ran out a long, long time ago, and she herself destroyed whatever non-judicial remedies that may have been available to her.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I disagree that such things are going on.

Leavitt states that he never passed on what Denson reported to him.

And Leavitt's account of what Denson reported is quite different from what Denson claims she reported to him.

He has not confessed to rape or attempted rape.  Those are the allegations at issue in the litigation.

I don't think this is about protection.  This is about what can, or cannot, be presented in a court of law.  Denson had an opportunity beyond this.  She could possibly have reached a negotiated settlement with the Church.  She instead chose to blow up her own attorneys' negotiations with the Church.

I feel quite badly for Ms. Denson.  I think Bishop did something to her that was despicable and dishonorable, though at present I doubt it was rape or attempted rape.  In any event, Denson's judicial remedies ran out a long, long time ago, and she herself destroyed whatever non-judicial remedies that may have been available to her.

Thanks,

-Smac

Here are the actual allegations in the case:  sexual assault and battery, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, fraudulent nondisclosure and fraudulent concealment.

The young Denson believed that she was reporting what had occurred to the propert authority in the church.  That authority claims that he did nothing with her report. 

The spin and concealment here is the DN and church attorney pretending that report and subsequent calls to the church never occurred. While it is true that Denson did not go to the police with her case, this article ought to have clarified the actual events rather than saying she did nothing for three decades. 

Regardless of what can or cannot be presented in a court of law, I’m looking at this from the POV of the church living up to its own standards.  And it has not.  Sadly. 

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I disagree that such things are going on.

Leavitt states that he never passed on what Denson reported to him.

And Leavitt's account of what Denson reported is quite different from what Denson claims she reported to him.

He has not confessed to rape or attempted rape.  Those are the allegations at issue in the litigation.

I don't think this is about protection.  This is about what can, or cannot, be presented in a court of law.  Denson had an opportunity beyond this.  She could possibly have reached a negotiated settlement with the Church.  She instead chose to blow up her own attorneys' negotiations with the Church.

I feel quite badly for Ms. Denson.  I think Bishop did something to her that was despicable and dishonorable, though at present I doubt it was rape or attempted rape.  In any event, Denson's judicial remedies ran out a long, long time ago, and she herself destroyed whatever non-judicial remedies that may have been available to her.

Thanks,

-Smac

Rape is not at issue (at least not according to the des news piece):

Quote

Denson, 55, of Pueblo, Colorado, sued Bishop, 85, of Chandler, Arizona, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints last month in U.S. District Court for sexual assault and battery, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, fraudulent nondisclosure and fraudulent concealment.

It kind of sounds like, at least according to this, that it's already been whittled down to a case of fraud from Denson's perspective:

Quote

In 1984, the statute of limitations for rape in Utah was four years. The suit, however, claims the statute of limitations for fraud has not run out because Denson first learned the church had taken no action against Bishop in December 2017.

The lawsuit claims Denson made 10 reports about Bishop to various LDS leaders over the years without learning if any action had been taken against him.

I don't know if this fraud, then is levied against the Church or Bishop or both.  I guess both:

Quote

"In short, even assuming Ms. Denson’s allegations are true, she knew by at least early 1984 that, contrary to any alleged representation by (the church), Mr. Bishop was not 'safe, honorable, and trustworthy,'" he wrote. "Accordingly, the three-year statute of limitations for her fraud claim began to run at that time. Thus, Ms. Denson’s fraud claims expired in early 1987 — over 30 years ago."

I suppose this question will come down to whether or not it is credible that Denson did report the misconduct to her Church leaders, that they looked into it, and all of that--within the appropriate time frame starting in 1984.  If there remains reason to think Denson did report it (and by it that'd be more than them watching porn together, as awful a thought as that is) to Church leaders, then perhaps the Church's attorney is just blowing smoke here.  

What is sad in it all, of course, is that it seems generally agreed that Bishop did something awful to at least this one person.  There appears to be other victims, and it appears he was buoyed up by the Church, and used his Church influence to do these ugly things.  

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Here are the actual allegations in the case:  sexual assault and battery, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, fraudulent nondisclosure and fraudulent concealment.

The young Denson believed that she was reporting what had occurred to the propert authority in the church.  That authority claims that he did nothing with her report. 

The spin and concealment here is the DN and church attorney pretending that report and subsequent calls to the church never occurred. While it is true that Denson did not go to the police with her case, this article ought to have clarified the actual events rather than saying she did nothing for three decades. 

Regardless of what can or cannot be presented in a court of law, I’m looking at this from the POV of the church living up to its own standards.  And it has not.  Sadly. 

Interesting. So you know what opportunities individual Church leaders did or did not offer Ms. Denson over that period of time? 

It's funny you accuse the DN of mischaracterizing Denson's actions as "nothing" and then turn around and do the same to Leavitt. Did he do nothing? Or did he just not pass on the information? Did he offer counseling services for Denson? That wouldn't be nothing. 

Do you know for a fact that the Church did not offer support and reparations in 2010? 

[Marginal Gains]

Why wouldn’t the Church want to openly learn from this situation, so it can learn any lessons about its systems and protocols to ensure protection for future sister missionaries?

Why is the Church doing all it can to keep the details out of the public domain (well, all the details except the ones that sully the character of the victim)?

Edited May 16, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Interesting. So you know what opportunities individual Church leaders did or did not offer Ms. Denson over that period of time? 

It's funny you accuse the DN of mischaracterizing Denson's actions as "nothing" and then turn around and do the same to Leavitt. Did he do nothing? Or did he just not pass on the information? Did he offer counseling services for Denson? That wouldn't be nothing. 

Do you know for a fact that the Church did not offer support and reparations in 2010? 

Did Leavitt claim to do something?  I thought he claimed that he didn't take the allegation seriously and so did nothing.  But it does make me wonder, if he thought the claims, which have turned out quite credible, were summarily dismissed by Leavitt as not credible, and he thought, well I'll offer her my wise counsel anywho, if anyone could seriously consider his "wise" counselling as doing something of benefit to her.  In my mind I'd probably categorize it as more damaging than helpful.  

It's interesting that in the other case when she told her leader and was told, I'll look into it and get back to you, she heard nothing.  In the case of Leavitt, she claims, he said I'll report it up, and she claims she did visit with Carlos Asay after that.  I realize the Church says, there is no record of such a meeting, but that tells me the Church does make note of such meetings.  It'd be pretty easy for the Church to claim there was no record of that meeting even if there was such a meeting.  Afterall it is odd that the Church called Leavitt multiple times before he was ever interviewed.  Either the Church found records of this incident and pursued the lead to find out more, through Leavitt, or the Church got wind through Denson that she told Leavitt something and the Church pursued info that way.  Sounds to me like it's possible the Church had records of all of this and perhaps has hidden them, or destroyed them at this point.  Her naming of Asay remains interesting in all of this, because that suggests there is something credible about her claim of meeting with him, as some have pointed out, he would have been the logical one, in his position, to have had to look into the allegations.  And, it's unlikely she would have known that.  

[smac97]

I have uploaded the motions to dismiss filed on behalf of the Church and Bishop, respectively.  See below.

A few thoughts:

1. These motions are quite brief, and focus solely on the statute of limitations issue we have been discussing for some weeks now.  The "argument" section for the Church's motion is less than four pages long (as is the same section in Bishop's motion).

2. These motions come across as almost perfunctory.  A first-year associate at a decent law firm could have written them.  They omit additional and independent arguments for dismissal, such as deficient pleading under Rule 9(b) for the fraud claims, and also deficient pleadings under Twombly/Iqbal.  However, these omissions were probably intentional.  A deficiency in pleading can, in some circumstances, be corrected by filing an amended complaint.  However, I think the argument the motions do focus on are irretrievably fatal to Denson's claims.

3. The brevity and simplicity of these motions is, I think, a reflection on the overall poor quality of Denson's legal theories.  For example, the Church's arguments about the applicability of the statute of limitations is substantially strengthened by Denson's allegations pertaining to Elder Asay, and Elder Asay's death in 1999.  From page 5 of the Church's motion ("COP" is a reference to the Church):

Quote

In cases like this, with conflicting claims and denials, the credibility of competing accounts is often measured by the testimony of third parties. For example, how did Ms. Denson tell her story to others in the past? Unfortunately (and unsurprisingly), due to the significant passage of time, many of the individuals who knew what, if anything, Ms. Denson previously reported are long deceased. Case in point, Ms. Denson alleges that in 1987 or 1988 she informed Carlos Asay, an ecclesiastical leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of the alleged assault. But Mr. Asay died in 1999. And even individuals who are still alive are unlikely to have reliable memories of events from over three decades ago. That places COP in the unenviable position of defending itself against serious allegations without the benefit of key witnesses or fresh memories. It also undermines the truth-seeking function of the Court—a function that necessarily depends upon reliable evidence.

And from page 8:

Quote

A statute of limitations defense “may be resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss ‘when the dates given in the complaint make clear that the right sued upon has been extinguished.’” Radloff-Francis v. Wyoming Med. Ctr., Inc., 524 F. App’x 411, 413 (10th Cir. 2013) (unpublished) (quoting Aldrich v. McCulloch Props., Inc., 627 F.2d 1036, 1041 n.4 (10th Cir. 1980)). “Statutes of limitation are vital to the welfare of society and are favored in the law.” Wood v. Carpenter, 101 U.S. 135, 139 (1879). “[T]hey protect defendants and the courts from having to deal with cases in which the search for truth may be seriously impaired by the loss of evidence, whether by death or disappearance of witnesses,1 fading memories, disappearance of documents, or otherwise.” United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 117 (1979).

---

1 Indeed, this case exemplifies the need for a statute of limitations. Ms. Denson alleges that “COP knew, had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice of prior sexual improprieties against women committed by” Mr. Bishop. Compl. ¶ 36. But many of the individuals identified in her complaint are long deceased. For example, Carlos Asay, to whom Ms. Denson alleges she reported the assault, died in 1999. Compl. ¶ 32.

Denson is in a very difficult spot.  She alleges to the Court that she reported Bishop's reported misconduct to Elder Asay 30 years ago.  This disclosure is at the heart of her theory of liability against the LDS Church.  It is the sine qua non of her theory.  She has hinged her entire case against the Church on the claim that she spoke with Elder Asay 30 years ago.  This is a factual claim that she is asking the Court to examine.  But Elder Asay died 19 years ago.  How is the Court supposed to examine or "try" a factual allegations about something that may or may not have happened 30 years ago, the only other percipient witness for which has died?  I suspect Denson may argue that he (Elder Asay) may have left some written record of his meeting with her, and that she is entitled to peruse his journals and records from 1987-1988 to see if they contain anything that may help her case.  If so, I don't think she'll win that argument.  Elder Asay is not around to explain what records he kept, if any (or why he did not keep any records).  He is not around to provide his own recollections.  He is not around to testify if he met with Denson.  This case typifies why the courts have statutes of limitations.  

4. I am again left to wonder if Denson's attorneys know what a poor case they have presented.  I suspect they do.  I also suspect it was never their intent to pursue this in court.  Consider these remarks from Denson's lead attorney, Mr. Versnon, during their press conference in early April:

Quote

I just want to point out ... we did not have any part of leaking this to MormonLeaks ... McKenna, she leaked it to, she told a lot of people about that.  She said that to a lot of media.  We don't know which media did that {passed the recording on to MormonLeaks}.  And at first that was a shock to us.  We didn't know it was going to come out.  But, in retrospect, I appreciate MormonLeaks because MormonLeaks is doing what they are supposed to be doing.  That was a document that needed to have been leaked so that this story could be told.  They forced our hand.  The settlement negotiations shut down, and that's fine...

Actually no, that's not "fine."  "They forced our hand" = "They forced us to file a stinker of a lawsuit that has virtually no chance of surviving a motion to dismiss."

And the "they" here (MormonLeaks) is not really to blame here, IMO.

Thanks,

-Smac

Bishop MTD.pdf

LDS Church MTD.pdf

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Here are the actual allegations in the case:  sexual assault and battery, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, fraudulent nondisclosure and fraudulent concealment.

Yes.

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The young Denson believed that she was reporting what had occurred to the propert authority in the church.  

"What had occurred" is very much in dispute.  

What she actually reported "to the proper authority in the church" is very much in dispute.

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That authority claims that he did nothing with her report. 

And Denson claims that he arranged for her to meet with Elder Asay.  Hence a dispute.

You'll get no argument from me about Leavitt's failure to report.  He should have.

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The spin and concealment here is the DN and church attorney pretending that report and subsequent calls to the church never occurred.

Oh, come on.  You are faulting the Church for not capitulating to disputed claims.  You would never hold yourself to such an absurd standard.  If I were to accuse you of committing a grave wrong 30 years ago, and if you denied it, would I be justified in characterizing your denial as "spin and concealment?"

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

While it is true that Denson did not go to the police with her case,

This is a vita, vital thing.

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

this article ought to have clarified the actual events rather than saying she did nothing for three decades. 

What "the actual events" were is very much in dispute.

Did a rape or attempted rape happen, or not?

What did she report to Leavitt?

Did she meet with Elder Asay, or not?

What, if anything, did Elder Asay do in response?

All of these things happened, or didn't happen, 30+ years ago.  It is plainly relevant to state as much.

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Regardless of what can or cannot be presented in a court of law,

"[W]hat can or cannot be presented in a court of law" is central to this discussion.  We're talking about a lawsuit, after all.

And even if the lawsuit is dismissed (as I anticipate it will be), we're still left with the same problem of decades-old allegations, no evidence, deceased percipient witnesses, faded recollections, etc.

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I’m looking at this from the POV of the church living up to its own standards.  And it has not.  Sadly. 

Leavitt failed to report Denson's allegations to the police or to the Church.  I acknowledge this as a failure.

What those allegations actually were, however, is very much in dispute.

Apart from that, I think the Church has lived up to its own standards.  It investigated this matter in 2010 and found insufficient evidence to proceed with ecclesiastical discipline.  The Church lacks any authority or ability to mete out anything except ecclesastical discipline.  Law enforcement likewise lacks the ability to do anything in response to Denson's allegations.  And soon, I think we'll see that the federal court will also state that it too lacks the ability to do anything in response to Denson's allegations.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Interesting. So you know what opportunities individual Church leaders did or did not offer Ms. Denson over that period of time? 

It's funny you accuse the DN of mischaracterizing Denson's actions as "nothing" and then turn around and do the same to Leavitt. Did he do nothing? Or did he just not pass on the information? Did he offer counseling services for Denson? That wouldn't be nothing. 

Do you know for a fact that the Church did not offer support and reparations in 2010? 

It was Leavitt's own claim that he did not believe her and did not send her report up his priesthood line of authority.

And, no, I don't know what opportunities, support, or reparations the church may have offered Denson.  Denson hasn't identified any.  And the Church is definitely welcome to share but it would appear that the Church does not want to admit to any wrongdoing or lapse in judgment.  They have only sought to discredit the victim.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

"What had occurred" is very much in dispute.  

What she actually reported "to the proper authority in the church" is very much in dispute.

And Denson claims that he arranged for her to meet with Elder Asay.  Hence a dispute.

You'll get no argument from me about Leavitt's failure to report.  He should have.

Oh, come on.  You are faulting the Church for not capitulating to disputed claims.  You would never hold yourself to such an absurd standard.  If I were to accuse you of committing a grave wrong 30 years ago, and if you denied it, would I be justified in characterizing your denial as "spin and concealment?"

This is a vita, vital thing.

What "the actual events" were is very much in dispute.

Did a rape or attempted rape happen, or not?

What did she report to Leavitt?

Did she meet with Elder Asay, or not?

What, if anything, did Elder Asay do in response?

All of these things happened, or didn't happen, 30+ years ago.  It is plainly relevant to state as much.

"[W]hat can or cannot be presented in a court of law" is central to this discussion.  We're talking about a lawsuit, after all.

And even if the lawsuit is dismissed (as I anticipate it will be), we're still left with the same problem of decades-old allegations, no evidence, deceased percipient witnesses, faded recollections, etc.

Leavitt failed to report Denson's allegations to the police or to the Church.  I acknowledge this as a failure.

What those allegations actually were, however, is very much in dispute.

Apart from that, I think the Church has lived up to its own standards.  It investigated this matter in 2010 and found insufficient evidence to proceed with ecclesiastical discipline.  The Church lacks any authority or ability to mete out anything except ecclesastical discipline.  Law enforcement likewise lacks the ability to do anything in response to Denson's allegations.  And soon, I think we'll see that the federal court will also state that it too lacks the ability to do anything in response to Denson's allegations.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, the lawsuit is being discussed here.  But my comment wasn't about the lawsuit.  My comment was about the Church's behavior.  And, for reasons I explained, I find the Church's behavior disappointing and not consistent with its own standards.  I don't disagree that the Church is on solid legal ground with this dismissal.

 

Edited May 16, 2018 by rockpond

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You'll get no argument from me about Leavitt's failure to report.  He should have.

and

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Apart from that, I think the Church has lived up to its own standards.  

Hi Smac. I'm curious how you square these two statements.  Was not Leavitt the representative of the Church for Denson?  If the Church has lived up to its own standards are you saying the Church's standard is to fail to report?  Or are you saying Leavitt is not really a representative of the Church and thus the Church did not rail to report, but only Leavitt did?  

I wonder because it seems to me, from Denson's side, the case is going to hang on whether the Church had a report that it did not act on.  If it turns out true that Denson did meet with Asay, and Leavitt is lying, then we may be seeing a big old ugly problem here.